This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles
Add to and expand, especially sections without material
Bolivia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Panama
Paraguay
Uruguay
Place importance on nations with significant or outspoken Afrodescendent populations.
Nicaragua and Panama are nations with such populations.
Can someone review changes made to the text/chart, keeping an eye out for unquoted text (even with citation), unsourced facts placed in the text, and demographic facts (which seems to be changed every few days or weeks)?
Why is the person who changes the demographic information so persistent and what source is this person using to base his changes.
Feel free to edit this list, removing items you attend to and adding tasks that need to be done.
This topic contains
controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be
disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's
policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise
edit summary.
"Afro-Latin American" is also a gender-neutral term. There's no reason stated in the article that this is different enough to warrant a separate article. ...discospinstertalk 20:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply. Respectfully disagree, yes, it is a gender neutral term yet to is the article for the term
Latinx and that has a full article devoted to it as well. I'm the creator of this article and feel both gender neutral terms are deserving of their own articles, Wikipedia is in need of more diversity and more diverse topics such as this.
Neptune's Trident (
talk) 01:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)reply
The references given in the article don't distinguish between Afro-Latinx and Afro-Latin American (or Afro-Latino, Afro-Latina, Afro-Latin@). There needs to be sources that acknowledge the difference between the two terms, otherwise they just seem like synonyms. Some of the articles even use Afro-Latinx and Afro-Latina/o interchangeably. ...discospinstertalk 03:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)reply
I found a few academic encyclopedias that discuss Afro鈥揕atin Americans, but without much reference to other terminology.[1][2][3] A couple of sources I found seem to treat Afro鈥揕atin Americans and Afro-Latinos as distinct groups corresponding to
Latin Americans and
Latinos, respectively:
"African Americans, Blacks, Afro-Latinas/os, Afro鈥揕atin Americans, dark-skinned mestizos, and people of Asian descent are discriminated against ... Afro鈥揕atin Americans interact with U.S.-born Latinas/os and Afro-Latinas/os"[4]
"These scholars argued that, despite their relatively small numbers, Afro-Latinos were distinct among Latinos ... the African diaspora empirically is, and therefore theoretically should be, inclusive of Afro-Latinos and Afro-Latin Americans"[5]
^Davis, Dari茅n J. (2000). "Black Cultures". In Balderston, Daniel; Gonzalez, Mike; L贸pez, Ana M. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Latin American and Caribbean Cultures, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. pp.聽
189-192.
ISBN聽
978-0-415-13188-9.
^Davis, Dari茅n J. (2005). "Afro-Latin Americans". In Skutsch, Carl (ed.). Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities, Volume 1. Routledge. pp.聽
46-50.
ISBN聽
978-1-135-19388-1.
^Minahan, James B. (2013). "Afro鈥揝outh Americans". Ethnic Groups of the Americas: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp.聽
11-13.
ISBN聽
978-1-61069-164-2.
^Jones, Jennifer A. (2018). "Afro-Latinos: Speaking Through Silences And Rethinking The Geographies Of Blackness". In de la Fuente, Alejandro; Andrews, George R. (eds.). Afro-Latin American Studies: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. p.聽
594.
ISBN聽
978-1-316-83232-5.
"Afro-Latinx"
I am not aware of the term "Afro-Latinx" being considered offensive to Latin people - if there is an indication of this then it could be removed or accompanied by a note. In fact, I see the term and "Latinx" being used freely by Latin studies scholars.
It is very offensive to us native Spanish-speaking Latin Americans and should not be used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the entire world not just for the US.
Some sources below:
A 2016 HuffPost article stated, "Many opponents of the term have suggested that using an un-gendered noun like Latinx is disrespectful to the Spanish language and some have even called the term 'a blatant form of
linguistic imperialism,'"[1][2] which is "unpronounceable in Spanish".[3][2]
Hector Luis Alamo described the term as a "bulldozing of Spanish".[4] In a 2015 article for Latino Rebels, Alamo wrote: "If we dump Latino for Latinx because it offends some people, then we should go on dumping words forever since there will always be some people who find some words offensive.[5]
That is a pretty poor response. "Wikipedia is not censored" but we don't write "Americans also known as Gringos" as the opening line to the article about American people, just because we typically refer to them as Gringos in Mexico. Its systemic anglocentric bias, I suggest you read the relevant WP policies.
Php2000 (
talk) 14:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Well if Mexican academics of American/white descent referred to Americans as "Gringos" on a regular basis in their articles then yes, it would be in the opening line. ...discospinstertalk 16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
^
abGuerra, Gilbert; Orbea, Gilbert (November 19, 2015).
"The argument against the use of the term 'Latinx'". The Phoenix. Retrieved 2019-07-01. This is a blatant form of linguistic imperialism 鈥 the forcing of U.S. ideals upon a language in a way that does not grammatically or orally correspond with it.
^Cite error: The named reference Herlihy-Mera was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Brammer was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
IMO Latinx is a very clear example of anglo
chauvinism. Latin people don't use the term by a large margin, with only 2% identifying with it. Heck 2 out of 3 oppose it. YES it is an offensive term used only by a select few in american college circles.
Belevalo (
talk) 15:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Whether you think it's chauvinistic or not, the reality is that people (including Latino/a writers) do use it and clearly don't find it offensive. (And before you bring up the N-word as a comparison, please don't.) ...discospinstertalk 19:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
65% of latin people who are aware of it oppose it. only 2% support it. Conclusion: it's offensive. and so far, you're the only one defending it in this talk as well.
Belevalo (
talk) 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Whether anyone considers the term "offensive" or not is not a valid reason to censor it; otherwise we'd have to delete the entire Latinx article. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"Afro-Latinx" in lead
The term may indeed be noteworthy, but
Medium is a poor source, since it's
self-published. The Google Scholar results above are essentially
primary sources for the usage as well. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 18:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, it shows that the word is commonly used. The article is not about whether Afro-Latinx is noteworthy or notable, the word is included because it is a term that is used in many places, whether it's preferred or not. ...discospinstertalk 18:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
By "noteworthy", I just mean
worthy of inclusion within the article, not
"notable" in the WP-jargon sense. Regardless, we still need a reliable, independent source commenting directly on the usage to satisfy
due weight requirements. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 18:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Does that also apply to "Black Latin American" and "Afro Latino"? ...discospinstertalk 19:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Discospinster: the
NYU source is a two-hour video of a virtual symposium; if anything, it's a
primary source for any statements made in it. Where does the video say anything about the meaning of Afro-Latinx, let alone that Afro-Latinx is synonymous with Afro鈥揕atin American? 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 23:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The paper by
Vidal-Ortiz & Mart铆nez (2018) is a secondary source for Latinx, but not Afro-Latinx. The latter term appears only in a brief mention at the end, as the authors say, "to further incite the conversation on the possibilities and challenges of Latinx", where they pose the question whether Afro-Latinx conflicts with the goal of inclusivity in using Latinx. There's no
evaluation or analysis, just a question. We don't know from this source how prevalent use of Afro-Latinx is or even its precise meaning. However, given that the authors specifically make a distinction between "Latina/o/x" and "Latin American", we can safely assume they mean "Afro-Latinx" to denote
Black Hispanic and Latino Americans rather than Afro鈥揕atin Americans. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 01:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The article is not about the meaning of Afro-Latinx. The term is in fact used as a synonym of Afro-Latin American and I have supplied many sources to show that. You continue to be unsatisfied with the nature of these sources and changing what you consider to be sufficient. I'm not sure what your end game is here. ...discospinstertalk 15:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I think I just explained that the Vidal-Ortiz source does not show that the terms are synonymous. I asked where the
NYU symposium video supports that claim, but didn't receive an answer. I'm not sure how reliable Oprah Magazine is considered to be for sociological topics, but I suspect it's on the same level as most mass-market women's magazines, which is to say, not very. At any rate, the
source you added seems to conflate
Latin Americans with
Latinos, defining "Afro-Latinx" people as "descendants of Latin America with African roots", "Latin American[s] of African descent", and "Black Latinos" interchangeably. We already have an article on Black Latinos at Black Hispanic and Latino Americans. Given the sources we have, listing Afro-Latinx as a synonym of Afro鈥揕atin American seems
unduly weighted at best, and at worst simply incorrect. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 09:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
It is absolutely correct and just as relevant as the inclusion of "Afro-Latino", of which it is a synonym, as shown in the sources. ...discospinstertalk 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse but I will repeat, "Afro-Latinx" is absolutely correct and relevant to the article, whether or not it is acceptable to you. ...discospinstertalk 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter what you or I think is correct. I'll ask once again, where do the sources say this? 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 16:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm done trying to justify this to you. I have provided multiple sources which all seem to have a fatal flaw according to you. If you have a problem with the inclusion of Afro-Latinx as a synonym, I suggest you take it up in
dispute resolution. ...discospinstertalk 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Talk:Afro鈥揕atin Americans#"Afro-Latinx": dispute between two editors about whether "Afro-Latinx" should be added to the lead sentence as an alternative name for the topic. Editors differ on whether doing so accurately represents published, reliable sources or is a form of undue weight.
Third opinionDiscospinsterSangdeboeuf In some ways, I think this might be the wrong page to be having this discussion on. I note that
Latino (demonym) doesn't even mention Latinx in the lead (though it does briefly in the body). The main article for
Black Hispanic and Latino Americans doesn't have it either. I think it should probably be discussed in the context of those broader articles before it is in a country specific article like this one. I don't think there is going to be a lot of literature for Afro-Latinx, but there seems to be no shortage discussing just Latinx. I don't think its a leap to take the primary sources we have for Afro-Latinx and combine them with the already broad literature on Latinx to justify inclusion.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!鈿 21:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
CaptainEek: just to clarify, do you mean inclusion on the other pages you mention, not on this one? What about on Latinx? 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 02:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Sangdeboeuf, I mean inclusion on this page. Although now that you mention it, I could also see "Afro-Latinx" being discussed on the Latinx page itself.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!鈿 02:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
OK, but I'm still not convinced that most of these sources are using "Afro-Latinx" to mean Afro鈥揕atin Americans. The essays on
The Root (contrasting "Afro-Latinx" with "African American") and
Medium are about Afro-Latinos in the US.
Vidal-Ortiz & Mart铆nez (2018) are careful to distinguish "Latina/o/x" from "Latin American".
Oprah Magazine seems to conflate Latin Americans with Latinos. All the sources are written for a primarily Anglo鈥揘orth American audience. While there's some genuine overlap, the sources seem to focus mainly on
Black Hispanic and Latino Americans when discussing Afro-Latinx identity. Therefore I still think listing the term in the lead would be a form of
undue weight. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 03:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Both "Afro-Latines" and "Afro-Latinx" are
neologisms and don't belong in the lead.
鈽匱rekker (
talk) 11:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The article has several issues including: 1)- failed verification (December 2010), 2)- unsourced statements (June 2011, October 2015, December 2015, February 2016, January 2021, 3)- needing page number citations (October 2015), and 4)- needing additional references (February 2023)
The
criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4, The article is reasonably well-written.
Reassess article to C-class.
External links
There are twenty entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
WP:ELCITE: ...access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{
cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
Note: moved from article "External links" as possible future references
Latin American Network Information Center's (LANIC)
African Diaspora webpage with links to various websites (LANIC is affiliated with the University of Texas at Austin)
Tanya K. Hern谩ndez' (Professor of Law & Justice, Frederick Hall Scholar, Rutgers University School of Law) speech given 28 November 2005, Washington, DC:
"Discrimination and Education in Latin-America" The speech was given at the Special Meeting to Examine and Discuss the Nature of a Future Inter-American Convention Against Racism and All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance.
I think many, if not all, of these links/sources could be incorporated into the main text, rather than being external links. I think a few external links would be fine, but I'm not sure which one of these would be a good external link.
Historyday01 (
talk) 16:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles
Add to and expand, especially sections without material
Bolivia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Panama
Paraguay
Uruguay
Place importance on nations with significant or outspoken Afrodescendent populations.
Nicaragua and Panama are nations with such populations.
Can someone review changes made to the text/chart, keeping an eye out for unquoted text (even with citation), unsourced facts placed in the text, and demographic facts (which seems to be changed every few days or weeks)?
Why is the person who changes the demographic information so persistent and what source is this person using to base his changes.
Feel free to edit this list, removing items you attend to and adding tasks that need to be done.
This topic contains
controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be
disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's
policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise
edit summary.
"Afro-Latin American" is also a gender-neutral term. There's no reason stated in the article that this is different enough to warrant a separate article. ...discospinstertalk 20:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply. Respectfully disagree, yes, it is a gender neutral term yet to is the article for the term
Latinx and that has a full article devoted to it as well. I'm the creator of this article and feel both gender neutral terms are deserving of their own articles, Wikipedia is in need of more diversity and more diverse topics such as this.
Neptune's Trident (
talk) 01:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)reply
The references given in the article don't distinguish between Afro-Latinx and Afro-Latin American (or Afro-Latino, Afro-Latina, Afro-Latin@). There needs to be sources that acknowledge the difference between the two terms, otherwise they just seem like synonyms. Some of the articles even use Afro-Latinx and Afro-Latina/o interchangeably. ...discospinstertalk 03:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)reply
I found a few academic encyclopedias that discuss Afro鈥揕atin Americans, but without much reference to other terminology.[1][2][3] A couple of sources I found seem to treat Afro鈥揕atin Americans and Afro-Latinos as distinct groups corresponding to
Latin Americans and
Latinos, respectively:
"African Americans, Blacks, Afro-Latinas/os, Afro鈥揕atin Americans, dark-skinned mestizos, and people of Asian descent are discriminated against ... Afro鈥揕atin Americans interact with U.S.-born Latinas/os and Afro-Latinas/os"[4]
"These scholars argued that, despite their relatively small numbers, Afro-Latinos were distinct among Latinos ... the African diaspora empirically is, and therefore theoretically should be, inclusive of Afro-Latinos and Afro-Latin Americans"[5]
^Davis, Dari茅n J. (2000). "Black Cultures". In Balderston, Daniel; Gonzalez, Mike; L贸pez, Ana M. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Latin American and Caribbean Cultures, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. pp.聽
189-192.
ISBN聽
978-0-415-13188-9.
^Davis, Dari茅n J. (2005). "Afro-Latin Americans". In Skutsch, Carl (ed.). Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities, Volume 1. Routledge. pp.聽
46-50.
ISBN聽
978-1-135-19388-1.
^Minahan, James B. (2013). "Afro鈥揝outh Americans". Ethnic Groups of the Americas: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp.聽
11-13.
ISBN聽
978-1-61069-164-2.
^Jones, Jennifer A. (2018). "Afro-Latinos: Speaking Through Silences And Rethinking The Geographies Of Blackness". In de la Fuente, Alejandro; Andrews, George R. (eds.). Afro-Latin American Studies: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. p.聽
594.
ISBN聽
978-1-316-83232-5.
"Afro-Latinx"
I am not aware of the term "Afro-Latinx" being considered offensive to Latin people - if there is an indication of this then it could be removed or accompanied by a note. In fact, I see the term and "Latinx" being used freely by Latin studies scholars.
It is very offensive to us native Spanish-speaking Latin Americans and should not be used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the entire world not just for the US.
Some sources below:
A 2016 HuffPost article stated, "Many opponents of the term have suggested that using an un-gendered noun like Latinx is disrespectful to the Spanish language and some have even called the term 'a blatant form of
linguistic imperialism,'"[1][2] which is "unpronounceable in Spanish".[3][2]
Hector Luis Alamo described the term as a "bulldozing of Spanish".[4] In a 2015 article for Latino Rebels, Alamo wrote: "If we dump Latino for Latinx because it offends some people, then we should go on dumping words forever since there will always be some people who find some words offensive.[5]
That is a pretty poor response. "Wikipedia is not censored" but we don't write "Americans also known as Gringos" as the opening line to the article about American people, just because we typically refer to them as Gringos in Mexico. Its systemic anglocentric bias, I suggest you read the relevant WP policies.
Php2000 (
talk) 14:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Well if Mexican academics of American/white descent referred to Americans as "Gringos" on a regular basis in their articles then yes, it would be in the opening line. ...discospinstertalk 16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
^
abGuerra, Gilbert; Orbea, Gilbert (November 19, 2015).
"The argument against the use of the term 'Latinx'". The Phoenix. Retrieved 2019-07-01. This is a blatant form of linguistic imperialism 鈥 the forcing of U.S. ideals upon a language in a way that does not grammatically or orally correspond with it.
^Cite error: The named reference Herlihy-Mera was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Brammer was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
IMO Latinx is a very clear example of anglo
chauvinism. Latin people don't use the term by a large margin, with only 2% identifying with it. Heck 2 out of 3 oppose it. YES it is an offensive term used only by a select few in american college circles.
Belevalo (
talk) 15:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Whether you think it's chauvinistic or not, the reality is that people (including Latino/a writers) do use it and clearly don't find it offensive. (And before you bring up the N-word as a comparison, please don't.) ...discospinstertalk 19:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
65% of latin people who are aware of it oppose it. only 2% support it. Conclusion: it's offensive. and so far, you're the only one defending it in this talk as well.
Belevalo (
talk) 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Whether anyone considers the term "offensive" or not is not a valid reason to censor it; otherwise we'd have to delete the entire Latinx article. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"Afro-Latinx" in lead
The term may indeed be noteworthy, but
Medium is a poor source, since it's
self-published. The Google Scholar results above are essentially
primary sources for the usage as well. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 18:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, it shows that the word is commonly used. The article is not about whether Afro-Latinx is noteworthy or notable, the word is included because it is a term that is used in many places, whether it's preferred or not. ...discospinstertalk 18:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
By "noteworthy", I just mean
worthy of inclusion within the article, not
"notable" in the WP-jargon sense. Regardless, we still need a reliable, independent source commenting directly on the usage to satisfy
due weight requirements. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 18:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Does that also apply to "Black Latin American" and "Afro Latino"? ...discospinstertalk 19:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Discospinster: the
NYU source is a two-hour video of a virtual symposium; if anything, it's a
primary source for any statements made in it. Where does the video say anything about the meaning of Afro-Latinx, let alone that Afro-Latinx is synonymous with Afro鈥揕atin American? 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 23:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The paper by
Vidal-Ortiz & Mart铆nez (2018) is a secondary source for Latinx, but not Afro-Latinx. The latter term appears only in a brief mention at the end, as the authors say, "to further incite the conversation on the possibilities and challenges of Latinx", where they pose the question whether Afro-Latinx conflicts with the goal of inclusivity in using Latinx. There's no
evaluation or analysis, just a question. We don't know from this source how prevalent use of Afro-Latinx is or even its precise meaning. However, given that the authors specifically make a distinction between "Latina/o/x" and "Latin American", we can safely assume they mean "Afro-Latinx" to denote
Black Hispanic and Latino Americans rather than Afro鈥揕atin Americans. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 01:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The article is not about the meaning of Afro-Latinx. The term is in fact used as a synonym of Afro-Latin American and I have supplied many sources to show that. You continue to be unsatisfied with the nature of these sources and changing what you consider to be sufficient. I'm not sure what your end game is here. ...discospinstertalk 15:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I think I just explained that the Vidal-Ortiz source does not show that the terms are synonymous. I asked where the
NYU symposium video supports that claim, but didn't receive an answer. I'm not sure how reliable Oprah Magazine is considered to be for sociological topics, but I suspect it's on the same level as most mass-market women's magazines, which is to say, not very. At any rate, the
source you added seems to conflate
Latin Americans with
Latinos, defining "Afro-Latinx" people as "descendants of Latin America with African roots", "Latin American[s] of African descent", and "Black Latinos" interchangeably. We already have an article on Black Latinos at Black Hispanic and Latino Americans. Given the sources we have, listing Afro-Latinx as a synonym of Afro鈥揕atin American seems
unduly weighted at best, and at worst simply incorrect. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 09:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
It is absolutely correct and just as relevant as the inclusion of "Afro-Latino", of which it is a synonym, as shown in the sources. ...discospinstertalk 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse but I will repeat, "Afro-Latinx" is absolutely correct and relevant to the article, whether or not it is acceptable to you. ...discospinstertalk 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter what you or I think is correct. I'll ask once again, where do the sources say this? 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 16:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm done trying to justify this to you. I have provided multiple sources which all seem to have a fatal flaw according to you. If you have a problem with the inclusion of Afro-Latinx as a synonym, I suggest you take it up in
dispute resolution. ...discospinstertalk 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Talk:Afro鈥揕atin Americans#"Afro-Latinx": dispute between two editors about whether "Afro-Latinx" should be added to the lead sentence as an alternative name for the topic. Editors differ on whether doing so accurately represents published, reliable sources or is a form of undue weight.
Third opinionDiscospinsterSangdeboeuf In some ways, I think this might be the wrong page to be having this discussion on. I note that
Latino (demonym) doesn't even mention Latinx in the lead (though it does briefly in the body). The main article for
Black Hispanic and Latino Americans doesn't have it either. I think it should probably be discussed in the context of those broader articles before it is in a country specific article like this one. I don't think there is going to be a lot of literature for Afro-Latinx, but there seems to be no shortage discussing just Latinx. I don't think its a leap to take the primary sources we have for Afro-Latinx and combine them with the already broad literature on Latinx to justify inclusion.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!鈿 21:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
CaptainEek: just to clarify, do you mean inclusion on the other pages you mention, not on this one? What about on Latinx? 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 02:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Sangdeboeuf, I mean inclusion on this page. Although now that you mention it, I could also see "Afro-Latinx" being discussed on the Latinx page itself.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!鈿 02:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
OK, but I'm still not convinced that most of these sources are using "Afro-Latinx" to mean Afro鈥揕atin Americans. The essays on
The Root (contrasting "Afro-Latinx" with "African American") and
Medium are about Afro-Latinos in the US.
Vidal-Ortiz & Mart铆nez (2018) are careful to distinguish "Latina/o/x" from "Latin American".
Oprah Magazine seems to conflate Latin Americans with Latinos. All the sources are written for a primarily Anglo鈥揘orth American audience. While there's some genuine overlap, the sources seem to focus mainly on
Black Hispanic and Latino Americans when discussing Afro-Latinx identity. Therefore I still think listing the term in the lead would be a form of
undue weight. 鈥
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 03:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Both "Afro-Latines" and "Afro-Latinx" are
neologisms and don't belong in the lead.
鈽匱rekker (
talk) 11:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The article has several issues including: 1)- failed verification (December 2010), 2)- unsourced statements (June 2011, October 2015, December 2015, February 2016, January 2021, 3)- needing page number citations (October 2015), and 4)- needing additional references (February 2023)
The
criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4, The article is reasonably well-written.
Reassess article to C-class.
External links
There are twenty entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
WP:ELCITE: ...access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{
cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
Note: moved from article "External links" as possible future references
Latin American Network Information Center's (LANIC)
African Diaspora webpage with links to various websites (LANIC is affiliated with the University of Texas at Austin)
Tanya K. Hern谩ndez' (Professor of Law & Justice, Frederick Hall Scholar, Rutgers University School of Law) speech given 28 November 2005, Washington, DC:
"Discrimination and Education in Latin-America" The speech was given at the Special Meeting to Examine and Discuss the Nature of a Future Inter-American Convention Against Racism and All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance.
I think many, if not all, of these links/sources could be incorporated into the main text, rather than being external links. I think a few external links would be fine, but I'm not sure which one of these would be a good external link.
Historyday01 (
talk) 16:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply